mountainman

AFAIK not too many people question this evidence of "canonization" on the basis of claimed manuscript evidence for the prior existence of the canonical books which were to be named in the letter as canon. It is certain that some of the oldest Greek codices were not subject to the canon of Athanasius, because they contain the "Shepherd of Hermas", and they are conjectured to be descendent from the Constantine Bible of c.324/325 CE, and the EARLIER canon which Eusebius presumeably drew upon in his capacity of Editor-In-Chief of that publication.

Because it was new and represented a divergence from Constantine's Bible by the loss of the "Shepherd" and the addition of a few other letters. (Epistle Barnabas)

Duvduv

It turns out that many researchers have considered thw Athanasius letter to be a forgery in his name anyway. According to what I have seen online.

mountainman

Yes its true that the authenticity of the letter has been challenged, and it would not surprise me in the least to see it dated as late as Cyril of Alexandria who somehow got the title "The Seal of the Fathers". I guess the other question to ask is what is the earliest dated manuscript containing the books of the canon only.

Duvduv

If there are good reasons to suspect forgeries even in the second century and NT texts didn't emerge until later, then this means that the chemical dating processes are flawed because they have to comply with the traditional dates of the texts im order to get early dates for parchments in the first and second centuries.

mountainman

From WIKI on the NT:

AFAIK none of these have been C14 dated

Duvduv

If the NT texts were known and accepted, why did this original determinedly anti-Arian Nicean Creed of 325 not bother to include a single allusion ot anything found in the gospels or epistles referring to a historical Jesus in Judea born of Mary crucified under Pilate deliverer of parables and promises, or to the indwelling Christ and faith in him??

We believe in one God the Father All-sovereign, maker of all things. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on the earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and is coming to judge living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And those that say 'There was when he was not,' and, 'Before he was begotten he was not,' and that, 'He came into being from what-is-not,' or those that allege, that the son of God is 'Of another substance or essence' or 'created,' or 'changeable' or 'alterable,' these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

Duvduv

And a mere 16 years later comes along the First Antioch Creed which adds merely that he "has taken flesh of the [unnamed] virgin" but still nothing historical relating to the gospels or theological from the epistles of the "blessed Paul"?? It is noteworthy that the other three creeds produced in the SAME year at Antioch added in brief phrases that found their way into a couple of epistles and GJohn and GMatthew. The fact that all four came out at the same time leads me to wonder whether other additions were actually interpolations from a later period, since they also got into the revised Creed of Constantinople of 381.

And in one Son of God, only-begotten, who existed before all ages, and was with the Father who had begotten Him, by whom all things were made, both visible and invisible, who in the last days according to the good pleasure of the Father came down; and has taken flesh of the virgin, and jointly fulfilled all His father’s will, and suffered and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and will come again to judge the living and the dead, and remains King and God for all ages.

And we believe also in the Holy Ghost; and if it be necessary to add, we believe in the resurrection of the flesh and the life everlasting.

Duvduv

What does that mean for the list of fragments (P's)going back to the second century? Are you saying that nothing has ever been subject ot C14? As to the debate about the forging of Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus which are dated to the early 4th century, couldn't that argument be put to rest by using carbon dating? I suppose if the challenge is strong enough it might conceivably date the creation of the NT texts later than is usually assumed, i.e. into the fifth century.......

mountainman

That would be the list of NT Papyri fragments, which have been dated to the 2nd and 3rd centuries by a dating process known as Palaeography, or handwriting/ script analysis.

No canonical manuscript has been C14 dated AFAIK.
Two C14 results exist for non canonical manuscripts:

(1) Tchacos Codex containing gJudas = 280 CE (Plus or minus 60 years)
(2) Nag Hammadi Codices containing gThomas = 348 CE (Plus or minus 60 years)

Yes. Totally.


It may, but it may also do the opposite. For example the major Greek codices which are thought to be dated towards the end of the 4th century might be dated as early as the rule of Constantine, since many commentators think that these are representative of one of Constantine's 50 bibles.

Duvduv

Why haven't they undergone carbon dating??